SARF seminar notes - Surrey County Council

Surrey Archaeological Research Framework
Seminar 1: Summary Notes
Palaeolithic Report back/Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic/Neolithic/Bronze Age
24 January 2006
Jon Cotton (Chairman of the Seminar) outlined the SARF process, based on the
Olivier model. The seminar was intended to concentrate on the second of the Olivier
steps, namely the identification of the gaps in present knowledge and the material
resources potentially available within Surrey to help answer the gaps. He stressed that
the seminar was a first step and that all participants were encouraged to submit
thoughts both at the seminar and afterwards.
All participants should have received copies of the papers by Jon Cotton and Danielle
Schreve/Peter Harp and the condensed version of the longer paper by Roger Ellaby.
Palaeolithic Report back
Discussion points following Peter Harp’s presentation of the paper:
1. Congratulations to Peter Harp for encouraging a focus on the ‘peopling the dots in
the landscape’ in his studies. Vital that the ‘people’ focus be at the forefront of
setting strategies for research into the Palaeolithic (Geoffrey Gower Kerslake).
Strong support from Jon Cotton, as it was the focus on the lives of people in the
past that was the lifeblood of modern museums.
2. Confirmation that John Wymer’s Southern Rivers Project in the 1990s was in
many ways the starting point of the present paper, and that Robin Tanner’s results
had been passed to John Wymer.
3. Modern administrative boundaries had no relevance whatsoever for the
Palaeolithic and therefore the smallest region of study that made sense for this
period was South East England (Jon Cotton).
4. (i) Old SMR records across many parts of England show an association between
‘Clactonian flint’ and Late Bonze Age pottery. It is clear that ‘flint technology’
did not in fact advance in a Darwinian fashion from the simplistic to the complex.
It was accordingly necessary to be very wary of attributions of flint artefacts to the
Palaeolithic in the older literature (Richard Bradley). In response Peter Harp said
that he was aware of flint described as ‘Clactonian’ being found in Bronze Age
and Iron Age contexts, but in the framework paper he had been referring
specifically to ‘Clactonian-type’ flint found on the Clay-with-flints which,
although not necessarily Palaeolithic (and particularly not necessarily ‘Clactonian’
i.e. Lower Palaeolithic) in date, appeared by its condition that it might
nevertheless be earlier than the Bronze Age (giving as examples the material
labelled by Martin Green in Dorset as ‘Clactonian’ and artefacts found by Tom
Walls in Surrey labelled ‘Clactonian-type’).
(ii) Do we have technology to identify different sources of flint (Alan Hall)? Peter
Harp replied that Sieveking’s work in the 1970s on provenancing Neolithic flint
axes had demonstrated the problems with identifying flint sources, specifically
that while flint can often be ascribed to a particular stratum deposit (in the Chalk)
these strata cover very large geographical areas. With regard to the Farnham
Terrace A yellow, cherty flint, these might reflect a particular stratum of flint in
1

the Chalk which had been incorporated into the Clay-with-flints and so been
available to the early hominims before such a deposit may have been eroded
through solifluction. Beyond that, with regard to the Palaeolithic in Surrey, we are
largely limited to describing flint as being derived from either the Chalk, the Claywith-flints,
or gravel deposits.
(iii) Material from Farnham Terraces should be re-examined and if possible small
undisturbed Terrace deposits located for future excavation (Peter Harp).
(iv) Lithic scatters are a big imponderable, in this and later periods (Jon Cotton)
(v) Solifluction hollows on Walton Heath seem worthy of further examination
(David Bird). Although deposits in solifluction hollows on the Chilterns seem to
date back to the Palaeolithic it is undecided whether the solifluction hollows and
sink-holes on the North Downs are as early or whether they developed more
recently; they are potentially important as the deposits of loess which collected in
them may contain faunal remains (Peter Harp).
5. It is difficult to apply the Olivier model to this early period and the Research
Framework when drafted would need to take this into account (David Bird)
Richard Bradley’s address
His forthcoming book would synthesis the results for Great Britain and Ireland for the
Neolithic through to the Middle Iron Age arising from the great explosion of data in
the past 20 years. It had rapidly become apparent that the Irish or Scots experience
was very different from that of Wessex or the Thames Valley. What general lessons
had he learnt from the five years of research?
• The three stage Olivier model appears administratively simple but in the real
world all the stages are mixed. The acquisition of data in the field is as much a
part of the intellectual research process as synthesis. ‘Diggers are not technicians,
they are researchers’. And researchers at the very forefront of acquiring
knowledge.
• There is no point in asking questions of an SMR without first having an ‘emerging
theory’ to inform the extraction of data.
• But beware of preconceived ideas! For example, the English Heritage Thesaurus
of Monument Types may inhibit the emergence of fresh ideas. The monument
types so described may well be (and probably are) atypical for much of Britain.
• What is a ‘resource’? Need to take ‘resources’ (e.g. data) and utilise these to
produce ‘public understanding’.
• ‘Use research at particular scales to solve particular problems’
• Research should be about ‘ideas’ (that is, about ‘themes’) rather than about
‘periods’. But ‘themes’ do need to be chronologically framed.
• Too much archaeological thinking is still based on the mid-Victorian ‘Three Age’
model with its underlying implication of a steady ‘Darwinian’ improvement in
technology. Such steady improvements may not necessarily be true (see the
discussion section in the previous section on the probable mis-assignment of LBA
flintwork to the Palaeolithic).
• Much more attention needs to be given to defining and exploring intermediate
‘transition points’ within the Three Age model, as these may have more
significance for societal changes. The Bronze Age is now better viewed as two
very distinct periods, with other distinct ‘transition points’ within the Neolithic
and within the traditionally Iron Age/RB periods.
2

Turning more specifically to the generation of an Archaeological Research
Framework for Surrey:
• ‘Privilege the Local’ over the national. Politics constrains the Framework to a
modern administrative area, so play to the strengths of Local Studies.
• Relate all studies to the contemporary (e.g. Palaeolithic) local topography
• Let the ‘evidence have its strengths’. There is no a priori reason why areas in
Surrey should follow some assumed national or regional ‘norm’. It is now clear
that North Scotland is similar to Ireland and not the rest of Scotland, and it
appears that the Wessex Neolithic is totally individual and not a model for the
Neolithic elsewhere. However, evidence is emerging that the experiences up and
down the East Coast are much more homogenous in many different periods,
whereas the experiences change as one moves east to west along the South Coast.
• So much of the current archaeological story of Britain seems to have been written
about atypical sites.
• Experiences in Surrey are likely to have been different from those in Kent,
Wessex or the Middle or Upper Thames Valley.
The following points appear important in ‘privileging the local’ in Surrey:
• Do not be apologetic for not finding ‘monuments’ – these probably never existed
in many regions of Surrey.
• Beware of all typographies of ‘monuments’ defined many years ago. The standard
EH set may have survived because they were large and atypical or because they
were located on marginal ground. The ‘grey literature’ implies that the ‘standard’
types of monument are not being discovered in any number today despite the huge
explosion in archaeological coverage arising from developer-funded excavations.
• Most things don’t get into rivers ‘by accident’. How far back in prehistory was
this a prevalent practice in this area? What was going on in the Middle Thames
area, where deposition of all sorts of items seems common? Is there some special
ritual significance to Mortlake Ware? (And to what extent is there evidence for
similar practices on tributaries of the Thames in Surrey?).
• Surrey has an unusual preponderance of heathland barrows in the South of
England. Can these be integrated with circular Bronze Age ring-ditches and/or the
less regular ‘ring-works’ (some of which have been shown to have Bronze Age
origins)? Surrey has the opportunity to try to link ring-works, field systems and
extra-mural settlements. How local are these distributions?
• Generally, where are the open settlements in Surrey?
• We now have enough information to try to place the many finds of hoards of
metalwork in the context of past landscapes (the burnt mounds, the settlements,
the field systems). There is even the possibility of trying to derive predictive GIS
models based on the known information within the historic topography.
• Study ‘blocks of land within Surrey’, rather than Surrey as a whole. Surrey has
enough richness of material to permit this. Much Surrey material is distinctive and
important.
• The core aim of the Research Framework should be to derive “Prehistoric
Archaeologies in areas within Surrey”, not of the county as a whole.
3

Discussion points:
1. Runnymede is a unique site, with few apparent ‘features’ but a huge area of
settlement and very good preservation of environmental evidence in the alkaline
soils (Dale Serjeantson). Yes, lots of middens buried under alluvium, but few
house sites. Aerial photography not good at picking up Neolithic middens or
Bronze Age settlements. As elsewhere in Surrey need other methods of
‘prospecting’ – field-walking, magnetometry (Richard Bradley).
2. Rivers and/or river valley ‘corridors’ very important (Dale Serjeantson, David
Bird), possibly more important than ridgeways (Richard Bradley).
3. Changing views as to the degree to which there was thick forest cover (David
Bird, Jon Cotton).
4. Should investigate ‘blocks of land and features therein’ and inter-relationships of
distinct blocks of land (Geoffrey Gower Kerslake). Look especially for ‘negative
evidence’ on blocks of land where it should have survived if it was ever present
(Richard Bradley).
5. Why so little evidence of early settlement on chalk in Surrey (Jon Cotton)?
Wessex not apparently forested. Currently in West Sussex much evidence coming
to light of dense settlement on the loess of the coastal plain, whereas the surviving
Neolithic ‘monuments’ are all on the chalk (Richard Bradley). But most of
Surrey’s chalk is different, being covered with ‘Clay with Flints’ (David Bird).
6. Only one Surrey hillfort is on chalk, the others are all on the Greensand. These all
appear very different in function to the classic sites in Wessex (David Bird, Jon
Cotton). But examples of even the classic type appear different one to another
when excavated. The absence of finds from within Surrey Greensand hillforts may
well reveal correctly ‘no substantial activity’ within the structures (Richard
Bradley). How do we infer at the level of the ‘people’ what was going on,
especially if this were essentially based on very local circumstances (David Bird)?
7. Mesolithic material is present across many geological areas of Surrey and not just
on the Greensand; the common belief that the Mesolithic is restricted to the
Greensand is a myth. Much Mesolithic material is now coming from the Wealden
clays. (Roger Ellaby, Robin Tanner).
8. Repeated field-walking over 4 sq miles at Outwood over many years has revealed
evidence of all periods. But the surface archaeology is fragile and fleeting. One
field was walked for 12 years before a particular ploughing brought up a
concentration of Iron Age/Romano-British pottery (Robin Tanner).
9. Published geological maps of Surrey are based on relatively few exposures of the
underlying materials, so important geological boundaries are interpolated
(guessed) over large distances (Tim Wilcock).
10. Soils can change quite quickly over time, e.g. significant soil changes in the
Neolithic and LBA on Cranborne Chase (Richard Bradley). Soils on the Surrey
heaths appear to show signs of podsolisation even as field systems were being laid
out (Judie English). Other examples of field systems being laid out in EBA and
gone by LBA, before a marked discontinuity in the type of field systems laid out
in the IA. Reference to David Yates’ extensive work on understanding the
development of field systems in Southern England (Richard Bradley). The very
clear plough marks discovered on sandy islands next to the Thames in South
London could imply that early cultivation of these marginal lands was very shortlived
(Jon Cotton). Perhaps there was not so much of an intensification of
agriculture on existing land in the EBA, but rather the bringing under cultivation
4

of much surrounding land, which then quite rapidly was abandoned (Richard
Bradley). Seems to have been the case in the Weald (Roger Ellaby) and in the
New Forest (Richard Bradley). Thus, as identified earlier, the archaeological
evidence within Surrey heathland may well be of more than local significance.
11. The current Royal Holloway College palaeo-environmental studies are a key stage
in being able to understand more of the ‘people in the landscape’ (Jon Cotton).
There is comparatively little known about the detail of the geomorphological
development of the Surrey landscape, including its rivers. What was the palaeotopography
at different periods?
Finally, some issues regarding people and processes:
• Need to develop ‘leaders’ in local areas to enthuse and encourage volunteers to
take an active part. With the apparent professionalisation of archaeology, many
potentially interested volunteers could be daunted in putting themselves forward.
We need to build confidence among volunteers in order to grow the people
resource base to allow many of the questions to be tackled (Alan Hall).
• Hope that the Surrey Archaeological Society can restart training programmes
(David Bird).
• Volunteers still needed to help with the team publishing old sites (David Bird)
• Need to build local archaeology on a bottom-up as opposed to a top-down basis,
with ‘de-professionalisation’ – there should be no distinction between
professionals and volunteers. There are massive opportunities for research at all
levels (Jon Cotton).
• It had been suggested earlier in the seminar that for the Palaeolithic the ‘smallest
region that made sense was the SE England’ (Jon Cotton – see above). It would
therefore be necessary for volunteers working on this period to gain more than a
purely local basis of knowledge; it might even be that some locality in Surrey
produced a regionally atypical site, and this would need to be noted and , if
possible, explained (Peter Youngs).
• A discussion on what might be done with the large amount of unstratified lithic
material in various Surrey museums? A difficult problem, possibly not central to
deriving a Research Strategy (Richard Savage, Peter Harp, Jon Cotton).
Jon Cotton closed the meeting by reiterating the request for thoughts. There was no
hidden agenda. The Steering Group were genuinely seeking views from all involved
in Archaeology in Surrey. Thoughts, particularly around the ‘Gaps in Current
Knowledge’, could be sent by letter, e-mail or any other medium to any member of
the Steering Group.
RWS
26.1.06
5

Surrey Archaeological Research Framework
Seminar 2: Summary Notes
Iron Age and Romano-British periods
31 January 2006
Jon Cotton (Chairman of the Seminar) outlined the SARF process, based on the
Olivier model. The seminar was intended to concentrate on the second of the Olivier
steps, namely the identification of the gaps in present knowledge and the material
resources potentially available within Surrey to help answer the gaps. The first
seminar on the earlier prehistoric periods had stressed the importance of “building
from the bottom-up, rather than from the top-down” by “privileging the local” and
concentrating on “reconstructing life on topographic blocks of land within Surrey”,
rather than across the whole of Surrey. He stressed that the seminar was a first step
and that all participants were encouraged to submit thoughts both at the seminar and
afterwards.
The ‘Iron Age’ period(s)
JD Hill’s address - “How do you fill a ‘black hole’?
Much of the content of the presentation had been laid out in the national agenda
“Understanding The British Iron Age: an Agenda for Action” by C Haselgrove et al in
2001, published by the Trust for Wessex Archaeology on behalf of the Iron Age
Research Seminar and the Prehistoric Society (funded by English Heritage and
Scottish History). JD handed out around 20 copies of this publication, in which Surrey
was classified as the only County in the South East where knowledge of the Iron Age
was akin to a ‘black hole’.
But parts of the evidence from Surrey were very strong and further advances in
understanding in Surrey could be of relevance both regionally and nationally. Our
understanding of the Iron Age across Britain was undergoing significant
transformation over the past 15 years and two new ‘edited’ volumes of papers were
due to be published by Oxbow later this year, as part of the process of building a
framework for a new synthesis of the Iron Age. But even these volumes could not
take account fully of the explosion in data arising from the ‘grey literature’ from
developer-funded evaluations and excavations.
Key points from the national agenda included:
• The traditional division into Early, Middle and Late IA periods was inadequate.
• Existing chronologies were based on too few sites and too few data points (e.g.
much of the synthesis for Southern England was based on the excavations at
Danebury, but the pottery sequences in Kent, for example, do not match those at
Danebury).
• Carbon-dating for IA sites should be obligatory; most sites should produce enough
carbonised seed for accurate dating. The difficulties of the calibration curve
between 800 to 400BC should not be exaggerated, as sufficient samples and
Bayesian statistical techniques would often lead to useful gains in knowledge.
1

• Any local IA site with pottery securely datable by association would be of
national significance.
• IA ‘site topographies’ seem to be heavily driven by ritual. Thus all ditch terminals
should be fully excavated and at least 20% of ring-ditches (rather than as little as
2% of ditches as might be common of ditches forming field boundaries).
Surrey’s IA should not be seen as difficult or a ‘problem’. It might well be that Surrey
would prove to be a litmus test for what was happening throughout the Greater
London region. Surrey contained far more ‘marginal’ land than some of the ‘classic’
areas and thus might be of greater relevance to the development of the Iron Age
outside those classic areas.
It seemed that the present lumping of IA sites of many different dates into a single
‘collapsed’ IA synthesis hid very significant differences between the periods. Current
thinking was based on a three-fold division (but it was not that of the traditional Early,
Middle and Late IAs). The current three-fold division could be characterised as:
(1) The Late Bronze Age
(2) “The Gap”, encompassing the traditional Early and Middle IA.
(3) The “Later” IA, encompassing the end of the Middle IA, all the Late IA and
on into the first and second centuries AD.
What evidence might be found in Surrey to help develop a synthesis on these lines?
Taking each division in turn:
• Surrey is very rich in LBA pottery, with settlement sites from the hills above
Carshalton to the river terraces of the Thames. The so-called ‘Celtic fields’ in
the region seem to belong to this period. There seems to have been an abrupt
and rapid collapse of this society, but when did this happen? Emerging
evidence suggests that in the Thames Valley it might have been around 800BC
and thus not immediately at the end of the Bronze Age. ‘Post Deveril
Rimbury’ assemblages have recently been dated to the EIA (i.e. post 800BC).
• The following ‘Gap’ period in the Thames Valley and across much of the
South East seems to have lasted from about 700/600BC to 300/200BC. In
contrast to the earlier period there are very few clear settlement sites, but
rather lots of wells and pit ‘scatters’. Evidence from the Channel Tunnel link
work in Kent suggests that feasting was of importance to this society. What is
this landscape about? Has there been a substantial fall in population? Is there
possibly an agglomeration of previously scattered farms into more intensively
occupied ‘settlements’, perhaps on hilltops rather than in the fertile valley
bottoms? What part, if any, do the hillforts, especially the enigmatic Surrey
hillforts on the Greensand, play in this period?
• There now occurs a radical change in the landscape, especially in West Surrey,
with the emergence of many roundhouses associated with paddocks and
trackways. The process is more patchy in East Surrey and Kent, but there are
areas (e.g. around Ashford) where similar developments occur across blocks
of landscape 15km to 20km wide. When does this phenomenon start? Current
evidence suggests the Later IA, rather than the Late IA. Precise dating by
pottery form is difficult. If the process is as rapid as it seems, where have all
the people come from? Have they now left the hillforts and any postulated
2

hilltop settlements and moved back to live on the valley bottoms, creating new
paddocks and trackways?
There seems to be a considerable ‘blurring’ on the traditional boundary between the
Middle IA and the Late IA. Around 200/175BC there appears to be an ‘explosion’ in
the adoption of iron, and a little later in metalwork in general and in the introduction
of coinage (with recent evidence suggesting that Gallo-Belgic B coins were being
minted in Hampshire as well as on the Continent). What changes in society have
produced these changes, which appear to be broadly coincident with the emergence of
the new landscape? Recent work suggests difficulties with the previous assumptions
about ‘tribes’ and ‘affiliations’ in Southern England in this period.
In summary, ‘regionality’ appears important throughout the Iron Age. The classic
hillforts seem local to Wessex. The emergence of ‘patterned landscapes’ 15km to
20km across during the Later Iron Age imply that there may be no parallels with
immediately neighbouring areas at any given point in time. Studies based on local
‘blocks of land’ seem particularly relevant. And what of the transition to the Romano-
British landscape? Did regionality remain an important factor?
Discussion points:
1. Surrey is very rich in LBA material and this warrants special attention (Jon
Cotton).
2. The Surrey Greensand hillforts are clearly important and their use and function
needs to be better understood. Because of their location and nature, the problems
will not be solved by way of developer-funded archaeology and so should be a
good topic for the Surrey Arch Society to tackle. These hillforts appear to face the
Weald; we need to understand better whether they are involved in transhumance
and, if so, work out the routes connecting them to other territories. It is thought
that early routes into the Weald are aligned north-south, whereas some east-west
routes are postulated in later times (e.g. in the medieval). (Peter Horitz, JD Hill,
Jon Cotton, David Bird, Robin Tanner).
3. How best to draw together an up-to-date list of all of the relevant ‘grey literature’,
most of which is deposited at the SMR? Is it worth setting up a project team to do
this? Probably not, as most Surrey grey literature is itemised in the Annual
Roundups in the Society’s Collections or in the London Archaeologist. However,
some reports are made very late – and these can only be tracked down by talking
to the archaeological units concerned. The point was made that ‘relevance’ can
only be determined in the light of a research agenda. (Tim Wilcock, Frank
Pemberton, JD Hill, David Bird, Jon Cotton).
4. The material from the old excavations at Purberry Shot in Ewell (dug in the 1930s
and published after WWII) would merit investigation as this seemed to be a
transitional MIA site which was difficult to assess (Peggy Bedwell, Jon Cotton). Is
there any carbon-dateable material in the museum archives relating to this site (JD
Hill)?
5. While Sussex has more of an IA framework in place, there are still many
difficulties with pottery sequences, with a lack of well-stratified and well-dated
material. Work by Sue Hamilton has shown that the hillforts on the South Downs
are very different from Danebury. One technique to clarify some of the older
reports would be to re-excavate the old trenches to redraw the sections (David
3

Rudling). There was support for looking critically at old reports and carrying out
targeted returns to old sites, both in Surrey and in West London. Some of the West
London sites might well ‘plug gaps’ in existing understanding (Alan Hall, Jon
Cotton).
6. There was a considerable discussion on the place of environmental evidence (both
of fauna and flora) in trying to elucidate whether we were seeing evidence of
transhumance per se, or some other form of ‘seasonality’. For example, do the
concentrations of roundhouse ditches at Mucking in Essex and Tongham in Surrey
represent ‘villages’ of houses occupied concurrently or a single family returning
to the site for the same season each year for many generations? A site at Daventry
in the Midlands has the remains of hundreds of roundhouses but floods each
winter. There are considerable doubts about the validity of the standard model of
single roundhouses in ‘farmyards’, at least in Eastern England (the original
Wessex examples may be a practice local to that area or perhaps even an
exception in that area). Furthermore, many roundhouses contain very little pottery,
far less than would be expected from a house occupied for many years. Were
people more settled before the “Gap period” and then again after it, but did not
live in the same house all year round during it? Attention was drawn to the
dangers of imposing the medieval model of transhumance on earlier periods (Jon
Cotton, Peter Youngs, JD Hill, David Bird).
7. Why is there so much metalwork deposited in the Thames during this period,
much of it brought in from considerable distances? What is the ritual significance
of this? And how does the practice change over time? (JD Hill, Jon Cotton).
8. Also a discussion on our knowledge of iron-working techniques. Surrey has quite
a number of sites, including Brooklands (early), Thorpe Leas (later), Bagshot
(later) and the Wealden sites (mainly later). It is difficult to draw up any
connections between the sites. Brooklands is odd in many ways, early and very
little production; it may be typical of earlier periods (800BC to 250BC).
Production of iron seems to take off about 250BC, with a marked intensification
around 100BC. A re-examination of the Purberry Shot material originally
classified as slag suggests 30+ furnace bottoms; but are some of these actually
hearth bottoms? A misidentification would lead to incorrect conclusions as to the
prevalence of production versus smithing, the latter being more likely to be
widespread. (JD Hill, Jeremy Hodgkinson, David Bird).
9. Most IA sites have a little non-ferrous metalwork and it seems clear that
production of such items was dispersed rather than concentrated (only five IA
sites are known across the whole of Britain that show concentrated non-ferrous
production). As already mentioned in the presentation, there seems to be a sudden
increase in the number of brooches, dress accessories and coins, becoming an
‘explosion’ during the first century BC. This appears to be a period of massive,
radical change in society (Frank Pemberton, JD Hill, Jon Cotton). However, while
Gallo-Belgic coins are coming to light under the Portable Antiquities Scheme,
other IA finds are remarkably few – only 5 or so fragments out of 3,000+ objects
recorded so far in Surrey (David Williams).
10. How can we find new IA occupation sites? Aerial photography and field-walking
are traditional methods in many areas of the country, but are not well suited to
conditions in much of Surrey. ‘Evaluation’ of sites under PPG16 commonly
involves trenches on only 2% of a site and is unlikely to pick up IA occupation.
Areas on the river terraces are best ‘stripped and mapped’ before large-scale
mineral extraction. (Charles Abdy, Richard Savage, JD Hill).
4

The Romano-British period
With most of the time at the Seminar devoted to the Iron Age, the session on the
Romano-British period had to be compressed.
The Roman Studies Group had drawn up the following list of themes:
• Political and Administrative Geography
• Communications
• Security
• Settlements
• Land Use and Environment
• Economy and Material Culture
• Belief and Burial
• Transition to the post-Roman world
JD Hill suggested three additions to the list to aid practical research in a local context:
• Food
• Dress and Appearance
• ‘Living Space’ (the form of houses)
The Roman Studies Group has either set up or is setting up three Study Groups as
follows:
Settlements (Frank Pemberton). Would concentrate initially on Ewell and Dorking,
with an archive study of Purberry Shot and other relevant sites. Were currently
constructing full pottery archives for Ewell with a view to working out the pottery
distribution for Ewell as a whole (along the lines of the study of Elms Farm in Essex).
Would also be looking at coin distribution in Ewell. Where had the population come
from? Was it resident or visiting? What relationship with the IA type sites up on the
North Downs? Continuity of agricultural production?
Points raised in discussion:
1. Pleased that terminology remained ‘settlement’ and did not pre-judge the evidence
(JD Hill).
2. Archive of the King William IV site in Ewell contains over 25,000 bones or
fragments of bone. Some analysis started but many questions could be asked of
this material, including about butchery practices (Jon Cotton).
3. The Ouse valley in Sussex showed similar location of more romanised dwellings
in the valley bottoms with less romanised farming sites higher on the South
Downs. However, detailed analysis showed that many of the sites were not
occupied continuously from the 1 st to 4 th centuries. What is the intensity of use of
different parts of the landscape over time? How do the different elements interact
with each other at each period? (David Rudling).
4. The proximity of Ewell to London merited further investigation. Who were the
farmers producing for? To what extent was production destined for London? (Jim
Davidson).
Roads: (Alan Hall). The Group had developed a cost-effective technique and using
this had in one and a half seasons of work located the route of Stane Street from
Ashstead to Church Field in Ewell. Their work showed that the section within Ewell
was only in use in the 1 st Century, so it may then have been diverted. The Group
5

would now be turning their attention to the ‘missing’ section of the presumed
London-Winchester road from Ewell to Farnham.
Points raised in discussion:
1. What was the impact of the Roman road-building programme on the pre-existing
IA landscapes through which it passed? (Jon Cotton)
2. It would be important to the research framework as a whole that attention was
paid to the other Roman roads in Surrey (e.g. the continuation of the spur from
Stane Street to Farley Heath) and to other routes to articulate settlements within
the landscape (Jeremy Hodgkinson, Alan Hall).
Villas: (David Bird) Surprisingly little was known about the various Surrey villas,
which for the most part had been excavated in the 19 th or first half of the 20 th century.
The present state of knowledge had been summarised in David’s recent book on
Roman Surrey (published by Tempus, 2004). Currently envisaged work included:
• A re-examination of old archives
• Carefully targeted work in the field (initially at Ashstead, funded by the site’s
owners, the Corporation of London).
• A consideration of the non-villa settlements (i.e. the place of the villas in the
contemporary landscape).
• A consideration of the importance of woodland in the contemporary
landscape, although this posed difficult problems as to evidence.
Points raised in discussion:
1. It appeared that a study of the Romano-British landscape would be a good way
forward, integrating evidence from the SMR (including the many RB burials), the
Portable Antiquities Scheme and from aerial photography (Frank Pemberton,
Richard Savage, Jon Cotton).
2. Environmental evidence was desperately short for this period (David Bird).
3. It might be helpful to mount a specific study of the building materials used in the
construction of the Surrey villas.
4. There should be some aspect of the Research Framework devoted to Belief and
Burial, given the significance of the ritual sites in Surrey (Jon Cotton).
5. There should be some aspect of the Research Framework devoted to the transition
in the early 5 th century, given the importance and distribution of the early ‘Pagan
Saxon’ cemeteries in Surrey. Pottery dating for this period still had many
uncertainties. (Jim Davidson, JD Hill, Jon Cotton, David Bird).
Jon Cotton closed the meeting by reiterating the request for thoughts, which could be
sent by letter, e-mail or any other medium to any member of the Steering Group.
RWS
3.2.06
6

Surrey Archaeological Research Framework
Seminar 3: Summary Notes
Early Saxon/Later Saxon/Medieval
14 February 2006
Peter Youngs (Chairman of the Seminar) introduced the third seminar, which like the
earlier seminars was intended to be part of the process whereby ‘bottom up’ studies
on local areas within Surrey would in time enable a new synthesis for the
development of Surrey. Traditionally the periods under discussion in this seminar had
been represented as a number of transitions at key dates but a major theme of any new
synthesis was likely to be the relative importance of continuity over change, with
change occurring more slowly and quite possibly at dates rather different from the
‘headline’ dates. The periods discussed in the earlier seminars have little or no
contemporary documentary evidence but such evidence becomes increasingly
available for the Later Saxon through Medieval periods and needs to be taken into
account along with archaeological evidence. Peter emphasised that local studies
needed to be grounded in a wider, regional appreciation if important patterns – and
equally local exceptions to regional patterns - were to be recognised and explained.
Mary Alexander’s address
Mary referred to the full notes by herself, Denis Turner and Judie English that had
been issued to all seminar participants before the meeting. She had been asked to be
‘provocative’ in her address and the points she would be making should be taken in
that light.
The ‘Early Saxon’ period
It appeared from the evidence of brooches that East Surrey was closely connected to
Kent and from the evidence of place names that West Surrey had close links with
Berkshire. Matters requiring study included:
• The relationship of the presumed ‘regiones’ to the later county boundaries.
• Whether the ‘-ingas’ names in West Surrey were Early or Middle Saxon.
• Whether Middlesex and Surrey were once a single unit (as the eastern and western
county borders of each were almost continuous across the Thames).
• Whether Surrey had ever been an early kingdom, later swallowed up by others.
• The implications of the Early Pagan Saxon cemetery at Guildown. Is it truly an
outlier of the group otherwise known around Croydon and Mitcham or are there
others not yet discovered? If it is truly an outlier, what is the significance of this?
• The existence and period of use of any ‘London Way’ from the West, as
postulated by Hill, coming from Farnham through Guildford and on to Dorking
before going up Stane Street to London.
The ‘Middle Saxon’ periods
• When did the distinctive ‘north-south’ parishes across the North Downs and
Greensand Ridge develop?
1

• Should there be a Minster in each Hundred? Was there ever a Minster at Stoke, or
was perhaps the original settlement at Guildford called Stoke and the name then
migrated northwards? Did Farnham have a Minster?
• Even the later (7 th century) burial sites seem to be concentrated on the dip slope of
the Downs. Does this reflect the settlement density of the time? Was there very
little Saxon settlement south of the Downs?
• But we have very few known settlement sites in Surrey’s archaeological record
anywhere.
• And thus almost no knowledge of their building style in Surrey and the
relationship of this to the emergence of the earliest known medieval buildings in
the county.
• What are the implications (and dating) of the ‘execution cemetery’ at Guildown at
the site of the much earlier Pagan Saxon cemetery. Does continuity of use – or at
least the re-use of the site respecting the position of the earlier graves – imply the
continuing existence of landscape features, such as barrows?
• Need much more work on the religious landscape of the growing Christian
church, both the Minsters and the later spread of churches close to manors and in
the villages. Does the survival of so many Late Saxon features in Surrey churches
imply that Surrey remained a rural backwater for centuries?
• Guildford deserves major study, as its early development is not clear. The Saxon
planned town appears to have been laid out in the mid 10 th century, but is the
church contemporary? We have no archaeological section across the presumed
Saxon defences; there may be an opportunity to locate the northern line of
defences in the planned extension to the Friary Centre in the next few years.
• The burhs in the Burghal Hidage of 914 merit further study (e.g. Eashing and
Southwark). A section across the presumed line of defence of the burh at Eashing
would seem to be a suitable first step.
• And finally, what about the Vikings in Surrey? Were they just transient passers-by
or are there more significant sites awaiting discovery?
The Medieval period (to 1500)
• How did the villages and field systems develop?
• What is the significance of the various ‘castle’ and ‘moated’ sites?
• What is the impact in the wider landscape of the major religious sites (including
Chertsey, Waverley and Newark)? These three sites were dug before the
emergence of modern standards and although ground plans were ascertained there
is little on their development over time, and few small finds have survived for
study today. The more recent excavations of the Friary at Guildford have
illustrated aspects of its development alongside the town. There is much
documentary record of the Chertsey Abbey holdings but little is known about the
location of barns, fish-ponds, etc on their various holdings. A geophysical survey
of the lands immediately around Newark Priory is planned.
• There are many issues involving the early development of the various industries in
Surrey (e.g. potteries, tileries, wool, iron, glass, fullers’ earth and building stone).
2

Discussion points
The various discussion points made are here grouped together (perhaps a little
arbitrarily) into the overarching themes identified in the summing up at the end of the
Seminar. The final two sections summarise the discussions on ‘archaeological
procedure’ and ways that the Society might develop to aid future research.
1. Early Saxon period
i) The Guildown cemetery was potentially extremely important. It was the only early
cemetery apparently lying far from a Roman road. If this could be shown to be the
case, then the site might tell us more about developments in this early period than
the cluster of sites nearer London (Geoffrey Gower-Kerslake).
ii) The dating of the ‘-ingas’ place names was controversial. Mary Alexander had
favoured a Middle Saxon date whereas David Bird favoured an Early date, based
on the observation that ‘ingas’ names occurred only in areas that did not have
Early Saxon cemeteries; he postulates that these areas were still occupied by
‘Britons’ as opposed to Saxons.
2. Settlement and Population within areas of Surrey
Has Surrey always been a fairly lightly populated rural and wooded area? There are
no large Romano-British towns and little archaeological evidence as yet of Saxon
settlements. Southwark and Kingston are closely connected with London and the
Thames. Guildford appears to be a late Saxon planned town. Surrey has no large
surviving churches but many features of earlier small churches have survived to the
present day (e.g. Compton, Wonersh, Alford, Godalming, and Cranleigh south of the
Downs, Pyrford and Wisley in the Wey valley north of the Downs, together with the
early tower of St Mary’s in Guildford).
i) In other areas of England we see many settlements created from the 7 th century
onwards and we should study the morphology of these to see if they are applicable
to any areas in Surrey (Judie English). But these areas of early settlement patterns
elsewhere generally lie in the broad band of good soils which run from Somerset
through Bristol and up through the Midlands and East Anglia; it is probably
significant that the areas of large Saxon and Medieval villages in the Midlands are
coincident with the areas that contain large numbers of small Romano-British
towns. These are the areas where the soils and agricultural possibilities support
large numbers of people (David Bird). Much of Surrey is either wooded or
heathland and has been agriculturally intractable throughout these periods (Peter
Youngs, Jeremy Hodgkinson). Settlement may thus be more dispersed and not so
intensive in total.
ii) The history of Late Medieval Surrey (i.e. in the 14 th and 15 th centuries) is a bit of a
mystery. Elsewhere this period seems to have seen boom to bust conditions (e.g.
in the Midlands, with the many Deserted Medieval Villages of the period) and
changes to a diet based more on meat, with changes to land use. Doesn’t seem to
have happened in Surrey – perhaps because there were no boom conditions in
Surrey earlier? Certainly there are no Perpendicular churches, despite the wellattested
woollen industries in West Surrey. Is there any evidence of changes to the
Surrey landscape in this period? But perhaps the development of vernacular
3

uildings in Surrey during this period suggests a rather more positive picture?
(Nigel Saul).
iii) To date the work of the Villages Study Group cannot shed much light on these
earlier periods (David Bird).
iv) There were no large aristocratic landowners based in Surrey and this might be a
major contributing factor to the failure to develop large churches in the later
medieval periods. The Victoria County History contains a huge amount of
information about the gentry of Surrey in the later medieval period and this could
repay study to see what light it might throw on the development of villages and
small towns in Surrey (Mary Alexander).
3. Transport and Communications (roads and rivers)
Little is known of the Saxon and medieval road patterns, but many doubt that
movement around the County was as difficult as it was reputed to be in the 18 th
century.
i) The High Street at Guildford points to Leatherhead, not Dorking. Is this not a
more likely early route to London than going from Guildford to Dorking and then
up Stane Street? The route up Pewsey Hill was a drove road in the 18 th century.
(Dennis Turner). Precise line of High Street likely to have been dictated by local
topography, rather than its destination (David Bird).
ii) Where precisely was the original ford at Guildford? In the 17 th century it lay
immediately north of the town bridge – which itself led directly to the High Street.
Some writers have conjectured the original ford as being located upstream at St
Catherine’s but this seems unlikely on geographical grounds – if it were located
there it would be subject to floods and the passage of a wide marshy area. It could
only have been located in or to the north of constricted passage through the North
Downs, possibly as far north as Woodbridge (Dennis Turner).
iii) The Saxon and medieval road systems are not understood. Were there north-south
roads and trackways in use to facilitate seasonal movement into and out of the
Weald? Were these the continuation of prehistoric and Romano-British routes?
What about east-west road links, which also appear important (Judie English)?
And salt routes (David Bird)? Some RB and medieval products (e.g. tiles and
building stone) could only have been moved to London by road, as there are no
suitable rivers connecting areas of production around Reigate with London (Mary
Alexander). Little evidence of river transport being important other than on the
Thames, with evidence regarding the Wey tending to suggest only local and
down-river transport (of timber and building materials in particular) (Mary
Alexander, Richard Savage). Down-river transport has also been evidenced in the
Chilterns (Dennis Turner). The Mole and the Wandle seem unlikely to have been
suitable for much river traffic at any period.
iv) It was important in gauging the place of Surrey in the wider regional picture that
we develop a better understanding of the road system. A study of the early
manorial records would probably reveal significant detail about the ‘public
obligations’ to maintain roads, causeways and bridges, and thus the location of the
road network (Nigel Saul).
4

4. The Religious ‘landscape’ and its implications
i) Consideration of Stoke as the postulated site of an early Minster should not be
subject to preconceptions (Geoffrey Gower-Kerslake). Mary Alexander replied
that she was unconvinced by John Blair’s evidence that it might be early.
ii) There was much to understand in the development of parishes and other
ecclesiastical establishments (Peter Youngs). The map displayed showed that
priories had been created at many of the settlements at the foot of the scarp slope
of the North Downs. Parishes in the NW of Surrey did not show the pronounced
north-south pattern of those straddling the Downs and the Greensand ridge.
However, these NW parishes originally lay either to the north of the Wey or to its
south with the Wey as a parish boundary, with the parish churches almost
invariably occupying plots that fronted the water meadows of the Wey. Parishes in
the SW of the county often straddled the Wey (Richard Savage).
iii) The Cistercian estates could be thought of as ‘industrial holdings’ designed to
maximise the returns from agriculture; while details of the village settlements
within the Chertsey estates were reasonably well known from the Charters this
was not the case for the location of fishponds, tithe barns and the rest of the
‘agricultural apparatus’ of the large monastic estates in Surrey (Judie English,
Nigel Saul, Dennis Turner). Alan Crocker recommended James Bond’s “Monastic
Landscapes”. Judie English is currently carrying out investigations into the
Waverley monastic estates. The area around Newark Priory from Pyrford down to
Wisley shows the creation of many new channels and remodelling of the historic
course of the river, and at least some of these works may be associated with the
foundation of the Priory at the end of the 12 th century. One of the newly created
streams is a leat taken from the Wey to provide additional power to Ockham Mill,
which lies a kilometre northeast of the take-off point in a side valley of the Wey.
These works almost certainly predate by centuries the river channel work by Sir
Richard Weston around Stoke and Sutton Place in the early 17 th century (Richard
Savage, Mary Alexander). 10 th /11 th century ‘canalisations’ have been reported
from Oxfordshire (Judie English).
iv) Merton Priory merits further consideration (Mary Alexander, Dennis Turner).
5. Castles and moated sites
i) Differences of purpose were as important as differences of status; the debate was
more complex than a simple differentiation between “castles” and “high status
fortified houses”. See Charles Coulson’s works, including “Castles in Medieval
Society: Fortresses in England, France, and Ireland in the Central Middle Ages”
(Dennis Turner, Nigel Saul).
ii) Abinger was a proto-typical small motte castle but there were not many of these in
Surrey (Dennis Turner).
iii) Reference was made to the recent Time Team programme on Waynflete’s Tower
and the destroyed portions of Esher ‘castle’, and the links to Farnham and
Tattershall (Dennis Turner).
iv) Of the major castles in Surrey, that at Reigate merited a good deal of investigation
(Nigel Saul).
v) In general, our understanding of the development of the various Surrey castles
was inadequate. Programmes of work integrating above and below-ground
5

artefacts into describing the life of the people of the time as the castle sites
developed and changed would be very valuable (Peter Youngs).
6. Surrey industries
Much work needs to be carried out on the precursors of some of the post-1500
industries, as well as on those industries which seem to have been concentrated in the
medieval period.
i) Potteries and tileries. While Kingston and Cheam wares are common on central
London sites, is there any record of Limpsfield or Earlswood wares being found in
London (Dennis Turner)?
ii) Wool. Sheep breeding is documented around Epsom on the Downs and in East
Surrey at an early time, but the wool processing industries seem to have grown up
in the medieval period in the West Surrey towns (especially Guildford and
Godalming, with a fulling mill in Guildford by at least the mid 13 th century). What
are the reasons for this (noting that in Kent wool shorn from sheep kept on
Romney Marsh was woven into cloth in the Wealden villages inland)? A search of
the Winchester Pipe Rolls might provide some answers for the West Surrey
towns. Sheep at Epsom may have been kept for meat for the London market.
(Dennis Turner, Nigel Saul, Mary Alexander, David Bird).
iii) Iron. There appears to be significant iron production in the low Weald around
Horley and Burstow in the late medieval period, with hints that this used a
different technology to that being practised in iron processing in towns such as
Reigate. This could be a good research project (Jeremy Hodgkinson).
iv) Glass, Building Stone, Fullers Earth No discussion at this seminar.
7. Developer-funded archaeology and the Society
It is inevitable that most excavation work in the future will be carried out by
‘archaeological contractors’, funded under PPG16 procedures by developers. A key
task falling to the Society and to academia will be the synthesis of all these results, as
archaeological contractors have no funding for this (Judie English). A key part of the
present process is to provide through the Surrey Archaeological Research Framework
the means whereby Surrey’s ‘heritage planners’ and archaeological contractors, often
from outside the County, can be informed as to the potential of each development site
(Mary Alexander, David Bird). But this is not enough; we cannot rely on the
professionals alone. The Society needs to gear up and enthuse a new generation of
active ‘volunteers’, to talk to archaeological contractors and developers, to carry out
watching briefs and to build public enthusiasm for archaeology (Andrew Norris). And
the Society should also run its own research programmes (David Bird), especially as
not all problems arise in areas where there will be any developer-funded work at all.
There are technical difficulties with the PPG16 process, particularly around the
narrow definition of ‘areas at risk’ and the present form of ‘evaluation’ trenches,
which are both machine dug and too small to pick up many forms of medieval
occupation. Similarly watching briefs are unlikely to recognise the ephemeral nature
of much medieval occupation, especially where rubbish was swept from medieval
houses into middens and taken from there to be spread on the fields (Dennis Turner,
David Bird).
6

8. Documentary sources.
The main sources of material are the manorial records, many of which are now
indexed on-line (with quite a lot of new manorial records found in the archives at
Oxford, Cambridge and Eton). Some have been transcribed (e.g. by the Surrey Record
Society) but in general it is best to go back to the original sources. The records of
Chertsey Abbey are particularly important for NW Surrey (Nigel Saul). Are these
easy to read (Pauline Hulse)? Best to learn first how to read documents of the 16 th to
18 th centuries; the recently proposed FE course by Surrey University on this is not
going ahead but the Society will consider arranging a similar course (Audrey Monk).
The earliest manorial records are from the mid 13 th century and are difficult to read
without first studying the later periods (Nigel Saul)
Peter Youngs and David Bird closed the meeting by reiterating the request for
thoughts, which could be sent by letter, e-mail or any other medium to any member of
the Steering Group.
RWS
16.2.06
7

Surrey Archaeological Research Framework
Seminar 4: Summary Notes
Surrey after about 1500: buildings, parks and gardens, agriculture
21 February 2006
Peter Youngs (Chairman of the Seminar) introduced the fourth seminar, which like
the earlier seminars was part of the process intended to construct a framework for
future research. The earlier seminars had been based primarily on chronological
periods; those for the post 1500 period would be based primarily on themes.
Documentary evidence for these more recent periods was much more plentiful,
increasingly in English and easier (though often not easy) to read. Dendrochronology
had been refined over recent years and become a key tool in dating the development
of medieval and post-medieval houses and barns; our knowledge of the period under
consideration this evening was based on a synthesis of archaeology, documentary
sources and scientific techniques such as dendro-dating. The Surrey dendro project
was also important to the SARF process in demonstrating the articulation of a project
with clear aims, the raising of the necessary funding and the carrying out of the
project to meet the original aims (while formulating new questions arising from the
findings). Notes by Rod Wild about the Dendro Project and by Brenda Lewis about
the Historic Parks and Gardens Project had been circulated to all participants before
the seminar.
Buildings and Dendrochronology
Presentation by Rod Wild
It would be assumed that seminar members had knowledge of both the basic sequence
of building types in Surrey and of dendrochronology as a technique.
The study of buildings helps to us to understand society in a wider context, including
such matters as crafts, styles of living, privacy, how the family and their associates
‘fitted’ into the house, classes of occupants, economics and the town/country divide
(which was very pronounced in this period). Dendrochronology enables calibration
(and sometimes amendment) of what was otherwise dating based on stylistic
evolution. In many cases of oak buildings in Surrey it was now possible to date felling
of the timbers (and as oak is used in its ‘green’ state, by implication, the date of
construction of a building or amendment) to a precise year. This had produced many
new insights (e.g. the replacement of open halls by smoke-bays seems to have
occurred all over the county within a couple of years of the Dissolution of the
Monasteries, although the reasons for this were still conjectural). Such precise dating
of the construction of houses and additions enabled correlation with events known
from, or to be found in, historical sources, such as the marriages and deaths of
particular individuals who had owned the houses. The intensive recent studies had
shown that in much of Surrey oak woods were being managed by the 15 th century,
with the regular cutting-back of lower branches on a 15 or so year cycle – although
oaks from the High Weald did not show this pattern. It was becoming clear that most
timber was used close to where it was felled. But it was now possible to show that
some houses (sometimes quite widely separated and of different social classes) were
built from timbers cut from the same wood in the same year – this clearly had
implications for our understanding of how woods were managed (e.g. in such cases,
1

was an entire wood cleared, whether then replanted or the land used for agriculture?)
and the wider societal and economic effects (how was the demand for new houses
inter-related with the supply of suitable timbers?). The precise dating of so many
early houses across Surrey seemed to show periods of much house building
interspersed with periods of little building. And some work had been carried out on
barns and churches (in the latter case demonstrating that published Church guides are
often inaccurate).
Rod showed a number of slides illustrating houses dated in the Surrey Dendrochronology
Project, from the earliest at 1254 AD through to the early 17 th century.
The styles of building in South West Surrey (around Godalming) were somewhat
different from those in the centre of the County. Very little was known about the
detail of medieval building in North East Surrey, as few medieval houses survived in
the Greater London area.
In summary, dendrochronology was able to calibrate all sorts of medieval and postmedieval
studies.
Discussion
• Overall around 30% of old houses in Surrey proposed for dendro-dating were not
suitable (generally because of species of tree or lack of adequate timbers); of the
remainder some 75% produced good dates (either to a single year or to a short
span of years). The overall statistics were however not necessarily a good
representation. In the South Mole valley ‘cluster’ only about 10% of early houses
were not suitable and of the remainder at least 90% gave good dates. In Horsley
and Clandon many houses had a high proportion of elm, rather than oak, and the
proportion of houses dated successfully was much lower. In Shere the oaks
seemed to have grown particularly quickly and the sequences here could not be
matched to more slowly growing oaks (this was probably a consequence of the
geology, not of differences in arboricultural technique).
• Studies of the geographical spread of techniques, informed now by the detailed
dendro dates, are at an early stage. There appear to be similarities between East
Surrey and Kent and between West Surrey and Hampshire, but even in these
localised areas specific building features and techniques seem to migrate at
different times! Clapboarding and tile-hanging are both later methods of covering
a building, the core of which may be much earlier.
• The dendro project has shown that in a number of cases houses and large barns
were constructed at the same time, sometimes to replace earlier buildings and
sometimes on sites not previously used. What are the implications of this on a
case-by-case basis? Were some of these agricultural units built from the outset for
rent?
• It is uncertain whether agricultural buildings tended to be built ‘more
conservatively’ than houses of the same date (as is sometimes claimed); it seems
inherently unlikely that a carpenter would use different traditions in building a
barn contemporary with a house, but of course the house is likely to have more
domestic features included within it from the outset. There are many documented
examples over the years of barns becoming houses and vice versa, and indeed
cases where a building has been a house, then a barn and then a house again
(sometimes in a very different format – whether in its later incarnation it is home
2

to a single family and their servants or split up into multiple dwellings). Boxframe
construction of large rectangular buildings is well suited to many forms of
adaptation of use over time.
• There are indications that ‘traditional’ methods that might otherwise be regarded
as somewhat archaic might be used for the construction of church roofs (e.g. king
post construction of some surviving church roofs has been dendro dated to periods
after this technique had apparently largely gone out of use in houses).
• Box-framed buildings on sleeper beams (whether Romano-British or medieval)
often leave very little archaeological trace in the ground. Even demolished wings
of buildings that are otherwise standing can be impossible to trace in an
excavation, even though well attested by documentary sources. This is a major
problem in tracing ancillary buildings that may once have stood around a house
that has survived to the present day.
• Precise dendro dating of a building helps researchers focus in more rapidly on the
relevant documentary sources (i.e. the Court Rolls for the right period rather than
40 or 50 years off, based on traditional stylistic dating).
• Many Court Rolls have already been transcribed. Researchers were advised to
check for such transcriptions and read any secondary sources before commencing
a time-consuming study of the original sources. Such background of refreshing the
collective memory would provide a sound basis for the next stage of research –
while of course maintaining a critical approach to all such material.
• How long did it take to build a domestic timber-framed house? Dendro studies
and early contracts (see for the latter L. F. Salzman, Building in England down to
1540 (Oxford, 1952) referred to in A. Quiney, Town Houses of Medieval Britain
(Yale University Press, 2003)) seemed to show that many houses were built in a
single season, although some other documentary sources seemed to record on
occasion a building period of up to 4 years. Most timber-framed domestic
buildings were built by carpenters, not by householders.
• The loss of medieval buildings in North East Surrey was not a recent
phenomenon. Studies of Hearth Tax returns showed that NE Surrey had lost most
of its medieval buildings by the 17 th century. The Hearth Tax returns for the rest
of Surrey had been mapped but the results not yet published.
• The Villages Project group would be re-issuing some of its guidance notes where
these were now out of stock and holding a series of seminars (the next on 20 May
when Annabelle Hughes will be talking about early documentation). Clearly the
recent advances in understanding of the dating of buildings from the dendro
studies would have relevance to the Villages Project, but (as recorded above)
work was still in progress on aligning building features with dendro dates in each
locality.
• Much of the early archive material relating to estates in Surrey is held outside the
county (a point also made in the preceding seminar).
• Brick was used at Waynflete’s Tower in Esher and at Farnham Castle
exceptionally early. It starts being used in chimneys more widely from about 1550
and then comes into more general use about 1600. Tiles were widely in use from
the medieval period. Where were the bricks and tiles made? Probably in clamps
close to where the buildings were constructed. References to large numbers of
bricks being made in the 1550s for Woking Palace at Sutton and Clandon
Common. Where are the clay-pits and the remains of the clamps? Was transport
by cart or by barge down the Wey?
3

• Still a need for a study of the use and distribution of the various types of local
building stone, both in the medieval period and in the years after 1500.
Gardens
Brenda Lewis confirmed that gardens were dated primarily on stylistic grounds,
although dating by documentary sources was preferred where these were available.
She noted that the later fashion for ‘landscape styling’ had largely destroyed any
medieval gardens, including their mottes and mounds. She also noted that in the
earlier periods gardens were often detached from the residential buildings, forming a
separate feature in the wider agricultural landscape around them.
Points made in discussion:
• Gardens did not seem to become an integral part of a “house” until the 16 th
century.
• Walled gardens went back to the monasteries and were present in domestic
settings by the later Tudor period.
• While garden features were in principle detectable in archaeological excavations,
the traces of many such features were very ephemeral and in practice little
evidence of gardens was found by way of excavation (paths and hard landscaping
sometimes survived, but by their nature gardens were frequently dug over and
remodelled). As mentioned above, it was often very difficult to detect where even
the buildings had stood if they had been based on sleeper beams. By their nature
traditional ‘cottage gardens’ were even more ephemeral than more formal
gardens. Dendro dating had not yet found much application in garden studies.
Agriculture in Surrey after 1500
From the chair, Peter Youngs posed the question as to what we know about the
agriculture of Surrey from 1500 up to modern times, and in particular how
agricultural practices in the county had changed over that period. David Bird asked
what studies had already been published into this. From the lack of response it seems
there may be no modern synthesis of the development of agriculture in Surrey since
1500. Points made in discussion included:
• There is a vast mass of material on particular aspects of agriculture in the county,
much of it published in the form of articles spread over many journals. There are
works of synthesis, although none specific to Surrey (e.g. H.L. Gray, English
Field Systems, 1915; H. C. Darby, Domesday England, 1977) through there is
much of local interest in many articles in national journals such as the Economic
History Review (see, for example, H.C. Darby again on Domesday Woodland,
1950-1) and the work of their PhD students (e.g. A. R. H. Baker, Field Systems in
the Vale of Holmesdale in the Agricultural History Review, 1954). Also the
Proceedings of the Leatherhead and District Society for field systems in the Mole
Valley. Much of this research material is based on the medieval period up to about
1500, but sets the scene for the private and Parliamentary Act enclosures of the
later periods. The Victoria County History contains a huge amount of material on
agricultural changes over the centuries up to the end of the 19 th century (and even
the 19 th century is a world away from today, see the diaries and other writings of
4

George Sturt of Farnham). The nation-wide review of agriculture in all counties in
the years immediately after 1800 should contain much detail about Surrey. There
seems a need for a project to produce a list of all the secondary sources.
• The main sources for creating a synthesis of the development of agriculture in
Surrey from 1500 to 1900 are likely to be documentary, although standing
buildings research may also provide insights. Excavation is not likely to be a
primary tool for this.
• Even where early documentary sources (e.g. Court Rolls) refer to a house or other
building it is often impossible to glean from the document the location of the
house or farm in relation to other houses and other features in the village. It is
often not possible to tie documentary sources precisely to a building known today.
• Not enough is known of the morphology of early buildings in the Surrey
countryside to be able to identify a building standing today as definitely a
virgater’s house. Estimates of the population are difficult. How much land could
be farmed by two men? How did this vary in relation to the proportion of arable
and pastoral? Women and children worked in the fields as well as men. And in the
dairies and associated agricultural processes.
• For each century from 1500 it would be useful to know the relative importance in
Surrey and its various districts of
• corn and other cereals, market gardening, flax, hops, orchards and other
specialist products
• cattle, sheep, and pigs (for, variously, meat, milk, wool and their hides)
• woodland
• To what extent over time were the farms specialised? How does this vary by
underlying geology and soil type?
• Much of the agricultural economy was likely to be influenced by the
contemporary transport system. Farnham corn apparently went westwards to
Weyhill market in Hampshire, at least until the opening of the Wey Navigation
when at least some of it seems to have been brought to Guildford (and later
Godalming) for transport to London – or at least to the corn mills near Chertsey
and Weybridge. Sheep and hops from Farnham seem to have continued to go to
the Weyhill market. The earliest reference to a lock on the Wey is to a presumed
flash-lock at Brooklands in 1566 to service a wharf used specifically for the
transport of wood and timber to the City of London (P. A. L. Vine, London’s Lost
Route to the Sea, 1963, referring to one of the Loseley manuscripts). Rafts of
timber were apparently being floated down the North Wey to Godalming as late as
1789 for trans-shipment onto barges there on the Wey Navigation and then on to
London (Vine, 1963, quoting Galpin, 1789). Were these logs perhaps sawn into
timber at Godalming? Should the trade in wood and timber be studied under
agriculture or under industry or indeed under transport links? How did the opening
of the Wey Navigation in 1653 affect the agricultural economy in West Surrey?
The proposed themes are much inter-related, as many industries were based on
processing animal products and all required transport links to their markets.
• Over the centuries, how was the agricultural economy affected by the growing
importance of the London markets? The growth of market gardening is likely to
be intimately connected with this. And perhaps towards the end of the period the
growth and harvesting of lavender and other ‘essential oils’ around Mitcham and
West Byfleet.
• And why does Surrey have quite so many ‘model farms’ of the 19 th century?
5

In summary there was much that was not yet clear. An over-arching question, for this
as for earlier periods, was the question of the size of the population of Surrey, both in
its towns and in its countryside. Manning and Bray gave very low estimates. There
was still much scope for study of not only the Hearth Tax returns but other types of
medieval and post medieval tax returns, as well as the reports of the Overseers of the
Poor.
Peter Youngs closed the meeting by reiterating the request for thoughts, which could
be sent by letter, e-mail or any other means to any member of the Steering Group.
RWS
23.2.06
6

Surrey Archaeological Research Framework
Seminar 5: Summary Notes
After 1500:industry (excluding transport and defences)
14 March 2006
Peter Youngs (Chairman of the Seminar) introduced the fifth seminar, which like the
earlier seminars was intended to be part of the process whereby ‘bottom up’ studies
on local areas within Surrey would in time enable a new synthesis for the
development of Surrey. This seminar seeks contributions of areas of investigation
which may have been overlooked and which can be covered in the future. With this
seminar we are moving into the modern period but there are no hard and fast rules
about chronological periods.
Alan Crocker’s address
Alan referred to the full notes which he provided and which had been issued to all
seminar participants before the meeting.
World Heritage Sites in Great Britain
Alan drew attention to the following interesting comparisons:
23 sites in all divided into broad categories:
Architectural (palaces and cathedrals etc eg Durham and Canterbury etc) 9
Industrial (mills and furnaces etc) 7
Natural (Kew Gardens, Giant’s Causeway etc) 4
Prehistoric (Stonehenge, Orkney) 2
Roman (Hadrian’s Wall) 1
Industrial sites fare relatively well
Ironbridge Gorge
Greenwhich Maritime
Blaenavon Ironworks
Derwent Valley Mills
New Lanark
Saltaire
Liverpool Maritime
Also due to be added in 2006:
Cornish and West Devon Mines ?July 2006
Brunel’s GWR (from Paddington to Bristol)
What is Industrial Archaeology?
1955 the term ‘Industrial Archaeology’- though there were publication on industrial
archaeology long before that
1972 Angus Buchanan ‘The examination of the process of industrialization,
particularly in the last two centuries, through a systematic study of its surviving
monuments and artefacts’
1

2005 Marilyn Palmer: ‘The study of industrial monuments in their temporal, spatial
and cultural context, i.e. the archaeology of industrialization’.
But are these definitions appropriate for Surrey, where we have early (e.g. the
textile, iron and glass industries) industrial activity and archaeological and
historical research are combined in the Society’s constitution?
When the Surrey Industrial History Group (SIHG) was set up it in 1979/1980 it was
recognised that Buchanan’s definition was only part of the story and that the historical
aspects were important. For some the interest was mainly practical (those who felt
that traditional archaeology was dull). Not all share Marilyn Palmer’s vision for the
future of industrial archaeology. Many become involved because they have a deep
interest in a particular aspect eg engines and machinery or are primarily interested in
the industrial revolution or even just the 19 th and 20 th centuries. However, because of
the importance of early industry in Surrey it is equally important that all industries
should be included which is why the interaction between Surrey Archaeological
Society and the Industrial Group has proved so fruitful.
In her paper for Aspects Marilyn Palmer encouraged industrial archaeologists to study
the ‘Landscapes of Industry’ thus putting industrial monuments in their temporal,
spatial and cultural contexts. She identified the following ‘landscapes’:
1. Linear Landscapes eg the Tillingbourne Valley, Wey Navigation (the
earliest canal in Britain)
2. Woodland Landscapes eg glass and charcoal production
3. Designed Landscapes eg the Bramah waterwheel at Painshill Park
4. Extractive Industry landscapes (for which Paul Sowan is the authority) eg
stone quarries, hearthstone mines, chalk pits
5. Urban landscapes eg tanneries (not all urban), mills, markets, industrial
housing
6. Defence landscapes eg second world war defences
In addition she identified ‘Landscapes of Social Memory’ (eg what our parents
remember about the lives they led)
1. Manufacturing industries eg Dennis Bros, Mark Webber Engines
2. Influence of landlords on settlements eg Albury moved from Albury Park
to Weston Street where Henry Drummond rebuilt mock Tudor buildings
3. Buildings of social control eg workhouses, prisons, hospitals (eg Alan
Thomas’s work on the Epsom hospital cluster), cemeteries. Many have
been recorded individually but we need a county summary
4. Leisure and entertainment eg football grounds, cinemas, race tracks (eg
Alan Thomas’s work on the racing stables at Epsom)
Background to SIHG
In 1974 (SyAS) arranged a series of ten industrial archaeology lectures which
were attended by 150 people. Following that clear expression of interest SyAS set up
an Industrial Archaeology Committee, which became the Surrey Industrial History
Group in 1979-80. It has a lecture programme which has just completed its 30 th series
of lectures. It has produced publications including Industrial Archaeology guides to
all 11 administrative districts in Surrey, 6 substantial books, conference reports,
several booklets and 150 Newsletters. Some of the topics covered are rather brief and
2

it would pay to bring some topics together for a county wide survey. The Group has
also hosted conferences including the first SERIAC conference in 1982 and 4 others
and a week long AIA conference in 1990. The Group also organises visits eg
Ironbridge in 2005, Sheffield in 2007 and shorter visits in Surrey and nearby. Projects
undertaken include the rescue and conservation of a 12ft diameter water turbine in
Godalming (now moved to Ironbridge) and the rescue and display of a gantry crane
from a statue foundry at Thames Ditton (on display at Tilford). SIHG gives a
Conservation Award now in its 24 th year.
Much of the research is carried out collaboratively and some is pre-industrial.
The following has arisen from recent discussions within SIHG:
Suggested Future Research – in no particular order (excluding transport,
defences (the subject of the next seminar) and extractive industries)
1. Government and industrial research establishments eg Central Electricity,
paper industries, fighting vehicles (Chertsey) and satellite technology
2. Brick and tile industry cf Sussex Industrial Archaeological Society’s
impressive history and gazeteer
3. Public Utilities (electricity, gas, water). Some brief references in the SIHG
guides but more in depth research is required
4. Machine tools/engines eg Drummond lathes and Mark Webber engines
5. Waterwheels (about 32 survive, most decayed cf water turbines already
published in the Collections)
6. Iron processing sites (building on the ‘Alexander Raby Ironmaster’ conference
in 1998)
7. Breweries (county-wide survey building on the published work on Guildford
and tying in with the EH national survey)
8. Fire insurance policies (using the detailed analysis Wandsworth as a model
and using the Guildhall Library index but bearing in mind it is not complete
for some particular industries)
9. Census enumerators’ returns for details of occupations and the mobility of
workers - already carried out for the hosiery and knitwear industries and for
Chilworth (but not gunpowder works generally)
10. Oral history – encouraging people to write about industries of which they have
first-hand knowledge eg the manufacture of Spitfire jettison fuel-tanks at
Shalford, published in Surrey History 1995
11. Publish Industrial Archaeology guides to the south-west London boroughs, in
collaboration with GLIAS – Croydon will be the first
12. Recording industrial buildings eg Unwin’s Printing Works, Old Woking and
raw materials (charcoal and saltpetre) buildings at the Chilworth Gunpowder
Mills
13. Assisting local societies to conserve historic structures, such as the Lovelace
Bridges at East Horsley
This is not a comprehensive list but should be sufficient to demonstrate that there are
many substantial projects that need to be undertaken.
Alan Crocker finished his presentation having expressed some concern that a
Research Framework would be prescriptive – he doesn’t want to be dictated to. In
3

esponse, Peter Youngs emphasised that local projects need to be put into context and
that a ‘Framework’ is not inconsistent with personal enthusiasms. He then handed
over to Paul Sowan:
Research into the extractive industries - Paul Sowan
The regional emphasis here is particularly important because many of the products
were sent outside the county (especially to London) eg stone and lime BUT
identifying specific sources in detail is expensive eg a project on the Royal Palaces
tried to identify specific stones with particular quarries – the results were modest but
raised more questions than they answered.
The transfer of technology both around and outside the county needs to be studied in a
regional framework eg the same lime working family in the Medway and Surrey.
Some technologies operate on an international level eg lime kilns at Betchworth
There has been much work on the ceramics industry but nothing comparable for the
brick industry. Sourcing bricks can be difficult because a single manufacturer can
produce bricks of any colour or texture eg Brockham
DISCUSSION
Peter Youngs emphasised that documentary research is an integral part of this work
and that research is not worth doing unless it is published – though unlike much
archaeological work, most of this work is not destructive
Engendering research and broadening the skill base:
Many people find it difficult to pick up on other people’s projects especially when
they are in a ‘volunteer’ capacity – they need leadership and it is incumbent on us to
take time to enthuse others which may include those who are outside the membership
of SIHG (Andrew Norris). But there is a danger of focussing on the wrong thing eg is
there any merit in preserving a tile kiln. We need to identify gaps in our knowledge
and seek ways to fill them, eg the dendrochronology project. Enthusing people is a
difficult thing to do properly eg it is easy to do a Time Team but it is important to
ensure that we enthuse others to get involved in worthwhile projects to high standards
(David Bird). But sometimes it might be difficult to establish what work has been
done eg accidental discovery of someone doing work on local houses built from local
bricks in Ashtead (Peter Tarplee). There is information on the internet about what
people are doing (Mary Day). We can find skills unexpectedly in individuals eg
photography, steeplejack (Paul Sowan). Is there a role for apprentices or training days
because many individuals may be too inhibited to ask? (Pam Taylor). The DBRG
works like this. But documentary research is often done and kept at home (Peter
Tarplee). Training and guidance is important because people often feel they need
permission to start a project (Andrew Norris). E.g. Shalford Mill Day School where
individuals paid £20 and worked alongside 3 or 4 experts to record and interpret the
mill – giving completely different results to what the National Trust had thought
(Alan Crocker). Family historians may be able to contribute important information.
Workshops may be helpful to train people how to do documentary research (D Bird).
Mentoring is vital (A Norris). SIHG weekends work well in bringing people with
4

different skills together. The role of experimental archaeology should not be
overlooked e.g. Glenys Crocker’s work on warp weighted loomweights has given an
interpretation which is at odds with the archaeologists and Alan Crocker’s
experiments with paper making (Alan Crocker). We often miss out knowledge in the
craft and trade industries because of trade secrets and we only discover these in the
process of conservation (A Norris). In experimental archaeology need to be aware of
the cardinal rule – just because it works it doesn’t mean that was the way things were
done (D Bird). Can one identify gaps in areas where there are no members? (Mary
Day). Identify the expertise of members as opposed to their interests. Determining the
skills of people is an important part of the infrastructure (Peter Youngs)
Short presentation by Alan Thomas (pre-seminar paper circulated)
History starts yesterday. How do we ensure that the industries present at the moment
are recorded when every last scrap is extracted and sold and buildings are demolished
eg aircraft can be studied but in a commercial world they are scrapped and sold?
Where are the future industrial archaeologists going to get their information? We need
to try and preserve the records but extract a minimum from a mass of paperwork.
[Paul Sowan corroborated with an example of paperwork 8ft high – no one could keep
it all]. Let the Surrey History centre do the selection - they are the experts (D Bird).
How do we enthuse members? Apart from publishing and lecturing we need to get
individuals to DO things.
Defining the framework
It is not about who is leading. We need to be clear about the subject we are
discussing. We need to get away from the narrow Buchanan definition. We need to go
further and realise the points Alan Crocker made. In terms of industrial processes
Surrey has a long history. Industrial archaeology is not synonymous with the
Industrial Revolution. We are now in a better position to marry up archaeology and
history and it does not help to focus on machinery. Alan Thomas’s pre-seminar paper
was almost a lamentation of there not being sufficient of this kind of industrial project
for members to focus on. We need a framework to take the industrial period back in
time (Geoffrey Gower Kerslake). We need to be interested in records as well as
artefacts (Charles Abdy). Cannot always manage to find details of processes because
much was done using ‘trade secrets’ – first breaching in 18 th century (Paul Sowan).
Industrial Archaeology has been defined by its practitioners but there is now a move
towards the archaeology of industry. Marilyn Palmer’s definition has helped (as has
the earlier industrial landscape definition of David Crossley in a 1995 paper).
Industrialization is an economic and cultural event but industry goes back much
earlier (Jeremy Hodgkinson). We can concentrate too much on buildings (which are
in effect put there to keep the rain off) at the expense of what was going on inside
them eg Woolwich Arsenal – not a single machine tool recorded (John Day). There is
very little work drawing on trade journals – no one has ploughed through them,
including the adverts. They represent a huge reservoir of information which has not
been tapped (Paul Sowan) and some trade journals are indexed (Alan Crocker). It is a
fact that most people in industrial archaeology groups are interested in the last 200
years but it is critical to catch today’s industries before they disappear eg aviation
(Gordon Knowles). How do we define 'industry': specialisation and division of labour
– mass production vs craft? Groups of people in an organised way eg farming as an
industry? (Peter Youngs) Organised industry is not necessarily about bringing all the
5

elements together eg mills have to be in isolation because of the nature of the activity
– you can’t have too many close together because of the need not to poach on others'
resource – need to think of units of production (A Crocker). Then we need to consider
the market for the product. Industry responds to demand (Geoffrey Gower Kerslake).
What about Marilyn Palmer’s social memory eg cinemas, housing for Chilworth,
chapels, entertainment? What do we mean by this? (Peter Youngs) In Marilyn
Palmer’s terms the Archaeology of Industrialisation 1750-1950. We need to see the
period as a whole because we need to see how to fit it into society. (D Bird) E.g.
habitable buildings can be part of the industrial process as in cases where work is
done in individual’s homes (Geoffrey Gower Kerslake). E.g early knitting industry in
people’s homes (A Crocker). Can bring family historians into this process (Pam
Taylor). We need to see what information has not been published in existing guides
eg Peter Wakefield’s Epsom and Ewell guide – there may be other information
researched but not incorporated (Charles Abdy). In the Second World War
outworking included hundreds of tiny units making eg bits of Spitfire (Mary Day).
Difficult to set priorities. We need to grab opportunities both in terms of monitoring
and individuals. We need to identify a mechanism for spotting threats and
opportunities for key sites (Paul Sowan). Need to record anything you find eg recently
found dragons teeth at Chilworth mentioned at the start of the meeting (D Bird). E.g.
pull down CRL building (Mike Hookey) and e.g. Bridge at Chilworth. If you find
something act on it – would be good to have a reservoir of knowledge of members’
abilities to tap into (A Norris).
Peter Youngs and David Bird closed the meeting by reiterating the request for
thoughts, which could be sent by letter, e-mail or any other medium to any member of
the Steering Group.
Ann Clark
16.3.06
6

Surrey Archaeological Research Framework
Seminar 6: Summary Notes
Surrey after about 1500: Transport: defences and military aspects
21 March 2006
Peter Youngs (Chairman of the Seminar) introduced the sixth seminar, which like the
earlier seminars was part of the process intended to construct a framework for future
research. The ‘post-1500’ papers circulated previously concentrated mainly on the
‘industry’ aspects discussed at the fifth seminar but contained a list of topics
appropriate for this sixth seminar. Peter Tarplee was kindly standing in at short notice
to give a brief introduction to transport issues
Transport in Surrey
An introduction by Peter Tarplee
The subject matter split naturally into four categories
• Roads
The road network at 1500 was essentially that laid down in the medieval period
and was maintained principally by contributions levied on adjoining landowners.
The first turnpike trusts were set up in 1663 and by 1840 there were 22,000 miles
of turnpike road in England, maintained by the tolls charged. The first toll road in
Surrey was opened in 1690 between Reigate and Crawley and the last in 1836
between Godalming and a point near Dunsfold. Thereafter roads became the
responsibility of local or national government.
• Waterways
The Wey Navigation was opened from Weybridge to Guildford in 1653 and
extended in 1763 to Godalming. The Wey and Arun was opened between 1813
and 1816 to provide a route for Naval supplies from London to Portsmouth
without the dangers of the passage through the Straits of Dover. It soon became
obsolete for this purpose and closed in 1871. The Basingstoke Canal opened in
1794 but closed to commercial traffic in 1949. The first locks on the Surrey
stretches of the Thames were constructed between 1810 and 1830.
• Railways
The Surrey Iron Railway opened in 1802 (and closed in 1846) is generally
claimed to be the first public railway in Britain. The first steam line in Surrey was
opened from London to Croydon in 1839 (utilising part of the earlier canal to
Croydon) with lines to Epsom in 1847 and Dorking and Horsham in 1867. The
line from London (Nine Elms) to Woking Common was opened in 1838 and
extended to Southampton in 1848. The line from this at Woking to Guildford was
opened in 1845 and then went on to Haslemere and Portsmouth. It was noted from
the floor that many ‘connecting curves’ between these lines were constructed
during World War II to provide much greater flexibility in the use of the network.
• Aviation
There were a number of important early sites (including Croydon and
Brooklands). There were also many smaller sites that had been important in the
development of aviation and during World War II, including manufacturing sites
as well as operational sites.
1

Peter then turned to the organisation of research into Surrey’s transport, raising the
following issues:
• Is transport already adequately covered by specialist societies?
Peter said that many in SIHG felt that such studies were not a strong suit of SyAS;
most research had been published by specialist societies or enthusiasts. Paul
Sowan said he had doubts about the accuracy of many of such books and articles.
He felt that archaeology had a key role to play in considering the physical process
of constructing the various categories of transport infrastructure and then the
subsequent effects on the landscape, both material and economic, of the transport
systems when in use. Most of the publications by specialist societies and
enthusiasts concentrated almost solely on the physical operations of the various
modes of transport themselves once in operation (including both the fixed
infrastructure and the vehicles moving along such infrastructure). The studies of
railways by Alan Jackson were noted as exceptionally good.
• Closer links should be created between:
• SyAS and SIHG
• Various groups within SyAS (including the resumption of SIHG having a
representative on the Archaeological Research Committee)
• SyAS and specialist societies
• SyAS and other local history groups within the County (with a key role here
being the SyAS Local Area Secretary)
• Easier means of publication for the ‘enthusiastic amateur’
Many amateurs interested in transport studies did not feel that the SyAS
Collections were a natural or appropriate place for articles, with the Collections
being seen as primarily of interest to those interested in the results of
archaeological excavations. Much research on transport issues appealed to a wider
and perhaps different sector of the community. Many enthusiastic amateurs did
not aspire to produce scholarly material appropriate to the Collections, yet the
results of their researches were both valuable and interesting and merited popular
publication.
Points made in discussion:
Organisational:
1. It was agreed there should be a meeting between SyAS and SIHG officers to
discuss the various organisational points that had been raised.
2. The apparent impression within SIHG that archaeology comprises only
excavations is unfortunate. Much important evidence is gained from
archaeological studies of standing buildings and structures and from the
disciplines of ‘landscape archaeology’. Geophysical and other non-invasive
techniques also have their place in understanding the development of transport
infrastructure. Such archaeological fieldwork could play an important part in
recording vast-vanishing artefacts.
3. Further thought should be given to web-based publishing under the auspices of
SyAS and SIHG, or otherwise, for studies on aspects of Surrey’s transport
2

systems. Some researchers were more interested and comfortable in acquiring and
publishing data than in publishing syntheses of the material.
4. CNHSS publish on their website the list of all accessions to their library each
month. This appeared to be welcomed by most researchers and was a practice that
might usefully be taken up by others.
5. All working on Surrey’s past should be encouraged to deposit their unpublished
research at Castle Arch.
Railways:
6. Archaeological fieldwork on railway lines where construction had been started but
never completed (where there had never been much in the way of contractor or
railway company records) had the potential of producing much new information,
particularly about construction techniques of the period. Such uncompleted
railway lines include partially bored but now lost tunnels (e.g. in Croydon and
near Oxted).
7. The temporary ‘labour camps’ for the construction of the railways (and canals)
were presently invisible in the archaeological record of Surrey (although such
were known in some upland areas of England) and could perhaps be located by
metal-detectorists or other fieldwork. Census records might be helpful but were of
course only of use for railways being constructed at the ten yearly dates of the
census.
8. Reference was made to a siphon constructed in a conduit under the A31 to remove
water from a near-by railway tunnel. The purpose of the conduit was not clear; it
might have been part of a system supplying water to Rock Mill near Farnham but
further fieldwork would be necessary to elucidate this.
9. Paul Sowan championed the case of the Lake Lock railway in Yorkshire to be the
first ‘public railway’ in Britain (referring to the works of John Goodchild),
although the point was made that this had been constructed on a single
landowner’s land and perhaps without an intention of being a ‘public railway’.
Roads, bridges and causeways:
10. Very little was presently known about the medieval and pre-turnpike road network
in Surrey and to this extent the year 1500 was irrelevant. Medieval and postmedieval
Court Rolls contained important information, but generally in small
packets and in widely separated entries. All this information needed to be brought
together with evidence from field archaeology and other historical sources. This is
a major lacuna in our understanding of the development of Surrey up until the
time of the turnpike roads.
11. There are indications that some early ‘roads’ were not as insignificant and
unplanned as sometimes assumed. Some hollow-ways ascending/descending the
North Downs seem carefully ‘graded’ with low (up to 2 metre)
embankments/causeways straddling the point at which the steep scarp slope runs
out onto the flatter lands in the valley. Such embankments will preserve beneath
them the soil and landscape horizons of the time before they were constructed and
thus constitute an archaeological resource of some significance. The same is true
of railway embankments; while many of these continue in use (and so are
unavailable for archaeological study) many do not, including those constructed
but never used (see discussion point 3 above).
[As a subsidiary point, it was suggested that all such areas above and all areas
of colluvium that might similarly bury past land surfaces should be noted on
3

the SMR, to be taken into account as development proposals were made for
those areas. David Bird replied that this was impractical, especially as the
same rationale could be made for the much larger areas of alluvium and river
gravels in the County. SCC had adopted a different approach, namely that all
development areas of more than 0.4 hectare would require an archaeological
evaluation].
12. The dating of the principal causeways across the Lower Wey was unknown, yet
these works must have involved considerable economic cost when constructed.
They seem to have led across flood plains to fords, which were later replaced by
bridges. The major causeways between Old Woking and Send, and between
Pyrford and Ripley, were probably in existence by 1200 and may have been
constructed around the time of the foundation of Newark Priory (cf the
construction of the bridges on the North Wey by Waverley Abbey) – but may be a
good deal earlier.
13. There are many small embankments in the hillier country south of Guildford
which could have been either dams later utilised by minor roads or constructed
primarily as ‘ways’ across the country. This is an area where much fieldwork
remains desirable.
14. Many roads have been constantly ‘improved’ over the years, with widenings,
straightenings and regradings. It is frequently impossible to discern the precise
line of the earliest way.
15. The importance of the pack-horse should not be under-estimated for the earlier
part of this period; pack-horses do not need wide roads or wide bridges.
16. The relationship of road to the surrounding field systems merited close study.
Some field systems seemed to stop well short of the modern-day road, implying
perhaps in some cases a deliberate laying out of a planned road at an early stage of
the development of the agricultural landscape.
Aviation (non-military):
17. Up until World War II anyone could create a landing strip on any fairly flat piece
of ground and many farmers/landowners created such ephemeral ‘air-strips’ with
associated structures for their private use. What significance have these?
Defence
18. Should we be producing a list of the smaller World War II airfields and temporary
landing grounds?
19. A good deal was known in principle about the methods of construction of both
WWI and WWII airfields from manuals published at the time by the War Office
and books such as “The Civil Engineer at War”. It was unlikely that studies in
Surrey would add much to this.
20. More work still needed to be done on the main Anti-Tank line of 1940.
21. Generally speaking, the defence works of 1939 through to 1942 were less well
documented than those constructed later in World War II; the earlier works had
been carried out in a great hurry under local discretion.
22. The recent English Heritage ‘Defence of Britain’ project was by no means
comprehensive. It is not clear that new information communicated to English
Heritage is added to the database that is accessible to researchers.
23. Should we attempt to create a list of all army ‘camps’ in Surrey? Many were of
short duration. Similarly, differences of view on whether it would be worthwhile
4

to attempt to document all 20 th century trenches and practice works in woodland
and elsewhere. There are already instances of field archaeologists patiently
recording these with a consequent danger of misidentifying them as traces of
much earlier use of the landscape. As so little was documented in the early days of
World War II, oral history is important but several of those present counselled
against putting too much weight on this as they were all too well aware that their
own recollections of those times could be shown to be faulty.
24. It would be interesting to know the location of the special hideouts created in
Surrey in 1940 from which soldiers would have emerged after Southern Britain
had been over-run to harass the invading forces by sabotage from the rear (some
work regarding the Sussex elements of this system has already been published).
25. It was not known at the meeting whether the pilot English Heritage project on
WWII defences in the area around Waverley Abbey had been fully published or
deposited.
26. While the World War II period has received a lot of recent attention, there appears
to be little work being carried out in the County on earlier military aspects (save
for David Graham’s work in Farnham Park on the Civil War period and Judie
English’s surveys of 19 th century fieldworks near Aldershot). Some undated
features on aerial photographs appeared to be probably military in origin but fieldwalking
or other field work would be necessary to test these.
27. It was reported that private company records contain much that is of relevance and
importance to the development of offensive and defensive technologies in and
immediately after World War II and that such material should be deposited and
archived if at all possible.
28. Participants at the meeting felt that the Admiralty Telegraph system between
London and Portsmouth was sufficiently well understood for it not to be a priority
for further work.
The SARF process
Paul Sowan suggested that the location of all known early transport sites which might
repay excavation should be entered on the appropriate SMR so that the County
conservation team would be readily able to impose archaeological conditions on any
planning approvals to redevelop such sites (he gave as an example the wharf on the
Croydon Canal at South Norwood, which had been filled in with the building of the
19 th century railway, which now lies under obsolescent light industrial buildings).
David Bird replied that this particular example would need to be entered in the GLC
SMR but the point was of general validity.
David Bird spoke briefly on his evolving approach. There was a mass of information
and a variety of interested parties, with many possible outstanding issues to be
pursued. It was of the essence of a Research Framework that it tried to set down a
prioritised list of major issues as a basis for informing archaeological research,
whether by the Society, contractors or individual volunteers. From this it should be
possible to establish a few major projects to answer carefully defined questions, as
well as guiding research more generally. The process would remain iterative over
many years.
RWS
24.3.06
5

Surrey Archaeological Research Framework
Seminar 7: Summary Notes
Geology/overarching themes and ideas
28 March 2006
Jon Cotton (Chairman of the seminar) reviewed some salient points made in the
earlier seminars:
• “Research is about ideas”
• “Don’t have pre-conceived ideas”. e.g. the traditional ‘Three Age’ system now
appears to have little merit for SE England and the English Heritage thesaurus of
‘Monument Types’ may unduly constrain thinking and understanding of
discoveries in Surrey and other areas. As an example of new thinking, Mike
Parker Pearson has recently proposed a new threefold division of the Neolithic
into periods based on ‘belief systems’.
• “Privilege the local”
• “Consider ‘blocks of land’ within Surrey, not the County as a whole”
• “Need to keep on top of the ‘grey literature’”. Very fortunate in Surrey that
Annual Roundups of grey literature are published by SyAS in the Collections and
by the London Archaeologist.
• “It is never too early to start to synthesise”. Research is taking place in the field as
excavations progress; excavation is not a mechanical process of data collection.
• Still a great need for primary publication of the data; how is this to be achieved?
• Need to consider geology, soils, drainage and altitude for all sites
• We need better environmental and dating evidence for all periods
• Is so little really known about agriculture in Surrey in the medieval period? To
what extent does Brandon and Short’s “The south -east from AD 1000” draw
evidence specifically from Surrey? To what extent is the Surrey experience
different from that in Kent and Sussex?
• A need to understand the pre-turnpike road and communication system better.
• Perhaps a need to understand better early (pre-1700) industrialisation in Surrey.
SARF was intended to draw together all shades of opinion. It was not intended to be a
prescriptive exercise and would not stifle local initiative.
Tonight was the final seminar (but by no means the final opportunity to comment). In
this final seminar it was appropriate to think of the impact of London (Cobbett’s
‘Great Wen’) on the development of Surrey since Roman times and the possible
impact of Surrey on the development of London. Two contrasting statements:
• “If Kent is the garden of England, then Surrey is its patio”
• “Is Surrey London’s doormat?”
With this he introduced John Schofield, curator of architecture at the Museum of
London, who would no doubt be making some provocative points on Surrey as seen
from the perspective of London and the South East as a whole.
1

Talk by John Schofield (from his speaking notes)
“What I have to say is in two parts. The first is about the subjects I was asked to
consider; the second is some general suggestions about forming research agendas, and
what else archaeologists in Surrey should be doing, since research agendas seem to be
the place, as shown in the London agenda of 2002, for all kinds of activities besides
pure research questions.
The topics I have been asked to muse upon are: the relationship of Surrey to London;
its relationship to the Thames Valley, with the river perhaps as a frontier; any eastwest
relationships with Hampshire and Kent; the relationship with Sussex and the
Weald to the south; and geology [see the geological map]
From this menu I have chosen a few things, in fact four topics, and they are not in
chronological order:
• The relationship of Surrey to London, from about 1300 and especially after 1450,
is sketched in my paper in the Aspects of Archaeology and History volume of
2004. We can discuss that if you wish. I have little to add, except some general
remarks on towns and the built environment. I see that you had a seminar on
buildings, but from the notes it seemed to be mostly rural and there was no
mention of town buildings at all.
In general, economic and social historians have said for some time that small postmedieval
towns have not been adequately researched. One topic I touched on in
the Aspects volume is that during the 18th century industrialisation, away from the
outskirts of London, may have been more an urban than a rural matter. The towns
served as the sources of capital, production, marketing and distribution. This is a
feature of the history of small towns of the period in other parts of Europe, and
perhaps Surrey towns should be compared with those in Ulster or the Netherlands,
or even further afield. In this regard it is interesting that the review by Glenys
Crocker in the Aspects volume seems to be all about industries in rural settings.
• Secondly, I would like to address two possibly connected matters: the apparent
lack of any character of regional or national importance in its standing buildings,
at least until the 17th century, and whether this relates to the soil conditions and
the environment.
Let's take the topic of the historical value of Surrey's buildings, both religious and
secular, urban and rural from about 1300 to 1700, and turn to lain Nairn's volume
on Surrey in the Buildings of England series (2nd ed, 1971). This is a constant
complaint about the county having second and third rate buildings. In late
medieval parish churches, Surrey has an 'extraordinary mixture of bad material
and bad luck with a vengeance' (p.33). For church furnishings, there are some,
'though the search is rather like a treasure hunt' (p.34). For its medieval timber
buildings, Surrey has many fewer than Kent, and 'very many of those that remain
have been killed with kindness' (p.35). Only in the 1630s and 1640s does Surrey
make any decent contribution to the interesting architecture of England. Many
stylistic developments just passed the county by. And here may be the reason, as
Nairn says: Surrey was so remote. In the 17th century, it had as few towns for its
area as remote counties like Westmoreland and Herefordshire.
Presumably the relative backwardness of Surrey was to do with its soils, and here
those of a geological bent can help us out (see geological map handed out). If you
2

ead the regional history of the south-east counties by Peter Brandon and Brian
Short, published in 1990 (The south-east from AD 1000), Surrey is constantly
tarnished as the place where agriculture always fails, or is desperately hard. Now
this is not a value judgment by me, and lovers of Surrey need not rush to its
defence. The job of archaeology is to investigate and explain why Surrey was
different. Much of its character and differentness may stem from the underlying
geology and the potential of the soils (see ‘inheritance’ map handed out).
• As to regions west, east and south, I have several contrasting and indeed
conflicting suggestions; but they all stem from the main one, which is that the
present county of Surrey is not a useful unit of analysis at the regional level. The
Thames may have been a border between kingdoms in prehistory, but from the
Roman period onwards the region is centred on London, even in periods of less
urban activity like the early Saxon. From the medieval period onwards, the unit of
study should be London and the Home Counties, i.e. about 60 miles in every
direction from London, up to Bedford, Colchester, Dover, Southampton and
Oxford.
In contrast, one could make a region by placing Surrey with both halves of Sussex
and Kent as a block of territory south of London, and between London and
France. This has the merit of containing the Weald and the iron industry; and all
the major Cinque ports. Thirdly, an alternative way of looking at regions is to
make the region fit the question - or rather, ask what is the region for the question
being considered. The ironmaking in the Weald cannot be considered in Surrey
alone (see iron sites map handed out). John Hines in his Saxon review for the
Aspects volume extends the region eastwards to the Medway.
• A final regional point stems from the present organisation of government and
therefore archaeology. This raises two questions:
First, you do need to agree what is Surrey for the present purpose. In the Aspects
volume, there is an unfortunate division of view: for environmental history,
prehistory to Saxons, and medieval manors, the historic county including
Southwark and Bermondsey is used; for the medieval historic landscape and
vernacular architecture, the present county outside Greater London is used.
Second, the north part of historic Surrey is now within eight London boroughs,
from Richmond to Southwark. There is already a London Research Agenda,
looking outwards and based on the Museum of London. How do you propose to
deal with this? Any Surrey archaeological agenda has got to say how far it will fit
in with, or disagree with, the London agenda of 2002; even if the brief is to
produce an agenda for the present extent of the county.
So what to do? Here, taking a different tack, are some observations for you born of
my involvement in the formulation of excavation strategies and the London research
agenda over the last few decades.
1. Do what Surrey does best - what is it?
2. Identify areas for development which have either been overlooked or which are
undeveloped.
3. Do not subscribe to any idea of progress.
4. Don't reinvent any wheels. For instance, use the Museum of London pottery type
series, from the Roman period onwards. Most of it should apply to your county. Do
3

not make up your own type series now; and don't use a type series invented outside
the London area, such as was used in work on the Croydon Tramlink.
5. Within the research agenda, link archaeological work to the conservation of sites
and landscapes, and to Conservation Plans. I and others are currently trying to help
progress on the Merton Abbey site, and the first step is a Conservation Plan which is
about to be published. Archaeologists have got to sign up as being part of the
conservation business, and they do have a role in actively managing the past and its
products for both the present and the future. I suggest any archaeological research
framework document must be assertive as well as flexible. Archaeology is not an
occupational hazard for the construction industry, or merely a hobby or a slightly
bohemian special interest group which flaunts its peculiarities on TV. We have a
serious role in the understanding of past societies, and for much of the past,
archaeology is the only method of enquiry available. But it may be a long time until
Surrey tells the world it is proud of its archaeology. The first steps along that road,
like first steps anywhere, are always the hardest.”
Summary of Discussion Points
1. General agreement that Surrey has relatively few impressive medieval and postmedieval
buildings, compared with say Kent or Essex, whether in towns or the
countryside. As identified in earlier seminars, Surrey, particularly in those parts
close to London, has suffered a high rate of attrition of early buildings. This is a
particular problem for ‘town houses’ as distinct from houses in the countryside,
although DBRG was increasingly recognising the remains of distinct forms of
‘town house’. However the DBRG is leading the way in a systematic programme
of recording and dendro-dating early buildings in a way that has caught the public
imagination and could be a model for other counties. The analysis and synthesis of
the results is still at an early stage. It is not clear why so many writers on the
architecture of Surrey’s houses and churches have been so dismissive, as they
themselves recognised many interesting features in Surrey’s buildings
2. A disagreement with John Schofield’s suggestion that the earliest phases of
industrialisation should be sought in Surrey’s small towns; it was thought that the
evidence was rather that early industrialisation in Surrey took place in more rural
settings, often at the mills which lay along Surrey’s rivers.
3. Doubts were expressed on the utility (and methodology) of comparing the ‘density
of towns per sq mile’ and the conclusion that Surrey most resembled remote
counties such as Westmoreland, rather than Kent or Essex. What was the
definition of a town? Even in the 17 th century Surrey ‘towns’ were of much the
same size as a large ‘village’ in the Midlands. It did seem however that the size
and number of ‘settlements’ in an area was in proportion to the richness of the
agricultural base – in earlier seminars it had been pointed out that dense
settlements were found from RB times onwards across the agricultural plains of
the Midlands and East Anglia (and closer to Surrey in East Kent and the Sussex
coastal plain). The importance of sheep and the woollen industry in the growth of
Surrey towns had not yet been well articulated. Yet Surrey had no ‘wool churches’
as found elsewhere.
4. As in previous seminars, it was suggested that the lack of large landowners
resident in Surrey was a major factor in the relative lack of development of
churches and towns. While much of Surrey was owned by such landowners, it was
4

as subsidiary parts of estates based elsewhere. Any economic profits were drawn
off from Surrey and spent elsewhere.
5. The map from Brandon and Short showing the value of landholdings in the SE
that had been circulated by John to illustrate his talk had very few data points in
Surrey at all, and none within the agriculturally richer areas of Surrey. It was
accordingly of doubtful validity in support of the proposition that Surrey was
economically uniformly weak.
6. It was noted that Southwark was for long the largest ‘town’ in Surrey, with a
development history inextricably linked with that of the City and then
Westminster.
7. The London Research Agenda is heavily “City”-centric and furthermore contains
little on Industrial Archaeology. There is therefore less potential conflict than
suggested in having the eight ‘former Surrey Boroughs’ covered by both the
London Research Agenda and by the Surrey Archaeological Research Framework.
8. Many present agreed that Surrey should best be considered as largely independent
‘blocks of land’ for archaeological purposes with many of these ‘blocks’
overlapping into adjacent counties. As a counterweight to this, David Bird made
the point that Surrey was created as an administrative district over 1200 years ago
and had survived until recent times with very little alteration to its boundaries. The
underlying reasons for this needed to be understood. Various theories had been
advanced about Surrey being ‘frontier land’ or a ‘buffer zone’ between other
administrative districts but this was hardly a compelling argument to explain the
long-lasting nature of the County boundaries. Was there perhaps some sense in
which the Weald was deliberately divided into thirds between Kent, Sussex and
Surrey?
9. Research Agendas and Frameworks were increasingly important in securing
funds, whether through the agency of Planning Authorities on developers, or from
independent sources of money (e.g. English Heritage, Lottery Funds,
Archaeological Trusts). Real effort needed to be put into ‘archaeologically sexier’
publications; full colour printing should become the norm for printing for the
general public. Publication of detailed archives remained a challenge.
10. With the current changes within the Conservation Team at Surrey County Council
it was now increasingly likely that the Surrey Archaeological Research
Framework would initially be published in the form of a book/booklet as well as
existing in a more interactive format on the web. Further discussions would be
needed to secure arrangements for the updating of the Research Framework as
time passed. In any event would County Councils continue to exist in the mediumterm
– or would they be abolished in favour of District Unitary authorities?
11. Should there be an equivalent of the LAARC for Surrey? How could the funding
for this be established? Retention and re-examination of archived material seemed
crucial for archaeology to progress. A case could be made that this was more
important over the next ten years than carrying out new excavations.
12. A Research Framework should be based on ‘principles’ – a Framework document
should not be a Research Strategy or a Research Agenda. These should follow the
completion of the Research Framework.
13. Research Frameworks should be updated at least once every five years.
14. Surrey was fortunate in already having a good degree of cooperation between
traditional archaeologists, industrial archaeologists and historians. Efforts to bring
about more cooperation with ‘conservation-minded’ bodies such as the Surrey
Wildlife Trust had not yet borne fruit.
5

Geology and Soil Types
Paul Sowan gave a brief presentation, during which he made the following points:
• Archaeologists are concerned principally with the ‘drift’ deposits and the soils that
have developed on them. Far too many archaeological reports refer only to the
buried ‘solid’ geology.
• There is a vast range of geological literature and resources available. The 1” maps
are based on interpolation between widely scattered visual observations. The 6”
maps from the 1920s and the field notes on which they are based survive and are
available for examination.
• The archaeological ‘grey literature’ contains a vast amount of new information on
geological deposits, especially those close to the surface, and soil types.
• Brandon’s work is generally good on synthesis but weak on the geological
aspects.
• It is not known how much field research went into the early works on geology
around the 1790s and early 1800s. Unfortunately there are no records of field
visits to the Reigate stone mines and quarries of this period.
• Deposits with the same name in Kent and Surrey should not be assumed to be the
same deposit geologically (e.g. Thanet Sand in Kent is not the same as Thanet
Sand in Surrey. Ditto the various Greensands, Kentish Rag, etc).
Summary of discussion points
1. Scanning electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction studies had not been as
successful as expected in enabling medieval building stones used in London to be
attributed to particular quarries in Surrey or elsewhere. As yet, there were no
scientific techniques that were particularly helpful in this, partly because all the
medieval quarry faces had probably been worked out long ago.
2. However, study of pottery fabrics and inclusions was now standard and was
helpful in providing attributions of the clay and grits used to broad areas of origin.
3. London Clay, particularly west of the Mole Valley, contained lenses of sands and
gravels up to 50 feet thick and this needed to be borne in mind when looking at
geological maps showing ‘London Clay’ overlying the Chalk deposits on the dip
slope of the North Downs. There was some indication that RB and Medieval
settlements were more likely to be found on such lenses of drier material.
Similarly, the Weald Clays contained thin beds of limestones and sandstones.
4. Caen stone was very widely used for churches and other buildings across the
south east of England from Norman times.
Summing up
Jon Cotton urged all present to send any points that they felt had not been raised to
date to David Bird (contactable by mail and phone at County Hall) or any other
member of the SARF Steering Committee. David was intending to circulate the first
draft of the SARF by the end of May with a target date for comments of 26 June. A
‘final’ draft should be circulated by the beginning of August with comments to be
received by the beginning of September. The Conference would be held on 7 October.
RWS
30.3.06
6